The Complainant is IDT Corporation, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Reed Smith LLP, United States.
The Respondent is IDT Whosale Inc, Frank David, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 17, 2020. On August 18, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 18, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 21, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 23, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 27, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 16, 2020. The Respondent did not submit a Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 17, 2020. The Center appointed Carol Anne Been as the sole panelist in this matter on September 30, 2020. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. On October 3, 2020, the Respondent submitted an informal email. 4. Factual Background The Complaint alleges that the Complainant provides telecommunications products and services to retail and wholesale customers worldwide, and is one of the world’s largest providers of VoIP termination, international calling, airtime top-up, money remittance, and payment processing services. The Complainant owns more than 80 trademark registrations for the IDT marks in more than 25 countries, including the United States. Its IDT mark was first registered in the United States for telecommunications and related services in 1997, claiming first use in 1993. The Complainant owns several domain names incorporating its IDT trademark, including The Complaint alleges that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to web content copied without authorization from the Complainant’s websites to advertise his purported voice termination services. The disputed domain name was created in 2016, and resolves to content promoting the services of “IDT Wholesale”, “IDT Wholesale Southeast Asia” and “IDT Wholesale Asia”. The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions during the allotted period. After the proceedings were under consideration by the Panel, on October 3, 2020 the Respondent sent an email to the Center stating “I am just a web developer”; “If you want to get back the domain , then arrange a BITCOIN Payment - 10000.00 USD”; and “That is the best I can do.” The Panel, in its discretion, will consider the Respondent’s informal response as part of the record of the proceedings. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant alleges that it owns rights in the IDT mark throughout the world including the United States, and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its rights. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in using the disputed domain name, as evidenced by the Respondent’s use of the domain name for web content copied without authorization from the Complainant’s websites, to impersonate the Complainant and divert consumers from the Complainant’s websites. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent would have known of the Complainant’s IDT marks when the disputed domain name was created, and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith for fraudulent purposes or to profit from the good will associated with the Complainant and its mark. B. Respondent The Respondent did not directly make allegations concerning any of the three elements of this proceeding under the Policy. In his informal response on October 3, 2020, the Respondent stated, “I am just a web developer” and demanded a BITCOIN Payment of 10000.00 USD to “get back” the disputed domain name. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for its IDT mark, including in the United States where the Respondent is located. The Complainant first used the IDT mark for telecommunications and related services in the United States and obtained registration of the IDT mark decades before the disputed domain name was created. The disputed domain name, The Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, is not known by the disputed domain name, has no history of using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, and has no legal relationship with the Complainant. The Respondent’s informal response did not assert any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, stating instead that he is “just a web developer.” The Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to web content copied without authorization from the Complainant’s websites to advertise his purported voice termination services. The Respondent’s services offered on the site at the disputed domain name appear to be competitive with the Complainant’s services. The Panel finds the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Respondent registered the disputed domain name decades after the Complainant first used and registered the IDT mark for telecommunications and related services in the United States, and after the Complainant’s IDT trademark was widely used and known. The disputed domain name incorporates the IDT trademark with a descriptive term also used by the Complainant. The disputed domain name is highly similar to a domain name of the Complainant, The Respondent’s awareness of the Complainant is shown by the Respondent’s posting of web content copied from the Complainant’s websites at the disputed domain name. The website at the disputed domain name identifies the source as “IDT Wholesale”, “IDT Wholesale Southeast Asia” and “IDT Wholesale Asia”, and offers services that compete with the Complainant’s services. The Respondent appears to have registered and to be using the disputed domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s rights, to impersonate the Complainant and divert consumers from the Complainant’s websites. Further, “circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name” may be evidence of bad faith in accordance with Policy, paragraph 4(b)(i). While the Respondent’s informal response to the Center seeking a Bitcoin payment of USD 10,000.00 to “get back” the disputed domain name does not conclusively show that he registered or acquired the disputed domain name in bad faith, such a demand lends further support to a finding of bad faith. The Panel may draw inferences from the Respondent’s failure to provide an explanation other than bad faith. The Panel concludes the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name Carol Anne Been
Sole Panelist
Date: October 14, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy